The purpose of these websites is very distinctive and the two of them provide a good comparison of the opposite sides of the environmental debate. These two websites represent two approaches to the debate over climate change. The perspectives of the websites are quite different but in my opinion it is their approach to disseminating the information, which truly differentiates them.

The first website which I looked at was the “Friends of Science” website. This site was well crafted and detailed their agenda extremely well. The points were clear and concise. This is both its strength and its weakness; it is strong because it makes their arguments easy to understand and quick to absorb. It is weak though because it does not go into detail. The arguments made are broad and generalized and do not draw on many sources. This style of disseminating information is powerful in distributing information quickly to a lot of people; it is especially powerful at persuading the middle-of-the-road folks who constitute the largest group of people. This comes at the sacrifice of details and scientific arguments. This in my opinion works better with the general population and is way this approach is more effective.

The second website, “How to Talk to Climate Skeptic”, did not work when I tried to access it. But, based on what I learned from excerpts, I can gather that this website was chalk fall of information and facts on climate change. This website makes a great case for climate change and provides more than enough evidence to back up the statements that are made. The problem with this website is that this approach, though wonderful for scientists, this does not do much for the general population. The cluttered website filled with sources does not offer a concise and simple argument. This does not help in relaying the message it is trying to convey. This is why I believe that although “How to Talk to Climate Skeptics” is by far more convincing and accurate, the “Friends of Science” website is better at conveying their point. In order to sway the middle roaders, the Friends of Science website does a better job.

Friends of Science?

As we talked about climate change or global warming in classes, I realize how controversial issue it is. Some say climate change or global warming is reality that truly threatens our lives as we could see through Hurricane Katrina or Tsunami. However, some other may also argue that there is no scientific evidence that global warming or climate change is really happening, and even it occurs, there is no scientifically proven relationship between warming of the globe with recent natural disaster. These websites also present very different but both persuasive arguments.
The “Friends of Science” website has best interest in disproving the myths that most people including myself believe to be true. They argued that there is no scientific evidence of climate change or global warming. I thought this website presented updated information on fast moving and ever changing issue of climate change. In addition, the website was designed in the manner where I could easily follow. The arguments were stated easy and straightforward that people with not much back ground of environment could easily understand. I found them very convincing and believable. However, it would be more trustworthy if they sited where they took these information from.
The “how to talk to a climate skeptic” website countered many arguments presented in the “Friends of Science” website. The “how to talk to a climate skeptic” website has very different format from another one. It has linkages on different issue that leads us to blog look like web pages. I did not find this website very convincing, because I was not sure how creditable are the posts from random people. Even though this website has much more information than the “Friends of Science” website does, it was hard to follow and not that trustful.

Aesthically pleasing or scientifically compelling?

I found Grist’s “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” to be more compelling and convincing then the “Friends of Science” website. The purpose of the “Friends of Science” website was to combat the myths about climate change. After reading “Providing Insight into Climate Change” I thought I was reading one of those websites that didn’t believe in climate change. I read their statement about the website and apparently the website is trying to get citizens to focus upon other environmental issues like water and air pollution. They state that climate change has become the central environmental issue and there are a lot more environmental issues that need to be focused upon. Climate change cannot be the only one. I understand the websites point, but at the same time I think that its counter effective to try and take the focus off climate change. The environment is an issue that many Americans ignore or forget about. I think that environmentalist should encourage as much attention to any environmental problem as possible.

I think Grist’s “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is more convincing than “Friends of Science” because “Friends of Science” list all these myths about climate change and then give facts to disprove these myths, but they don’t cite any sources. “Friends of Science” doesn’t cite any sources, provide charts, and focus around the argument that the earth goes through warming and cooling periods all the time. I think it is evident that there is a change in weather patterns and temperatures. Grist sight provides a list of comments that skeptics use to refute climate change. Grist goes through each comment and provides evidence on the contrary to what the skeptics have said. Grist provides outside sources and uses a lot of governmental organizations like NASA and IPCC.

While I think the scientific arguments for Grist’s cite were more convincing, “Friends of Science” has a better aesthetic value for it. The website is nicely laid out, with a big globe over the web page and green and blue colors. The website looks very professional and lays out its arguments well. The color-coding alone in the website, makes it appear very environmental-because the website uses greens, blues and whites. The Grist website is not laid out very nicely. The arguments look like a blog, which can make some people believe less in the validity of the argument. I also wonder if people click on the skeptic’s arguments to find out why they are incorrect. Webpage viewers can be lazy or maybe they don’t realize that you can click on to the arguments. The website has no color and the structure is a bit confusing. Aesthetically, the Grist website looks less professional even though it has better arguments.

-Tracey Swan

science vs. politics--once again.

“Friends of Science” and “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” have a both a very similar and yet very different purpose. On one hand, they both offer the reader counter-arguments to climate change myths (one acknowledging and the other denying climate change) but the way the website is built up makes their purpose very different.

In “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” the only information one may found is what the arguments of climate change skeptics are and how one can counter them while backing up their arguments with scientific evidence. The sources are clearly marked and almost all refer back to websites of governmental organization such as the IPCC, NASA and NOAA. Moreover, the website takes up more the form of a blog than an official website, as people can post comments bellow the author’s points.

On the other hand, “Friends of Science” gives a very different impression to the reader at first glance. The website is aesthetically pleasing, organized and the title “friends of the earth” leaves the viewer with a feeling that the information in the website is scientifically based and positive in content. Yet when you start exploring the different tabs, one thing becomes clear: the website is highly politicized. I opened a random tab (the one concerning the Copenhagen Climate Treaty) and fell on the excerpt of a speech by Lord Christopher Monckton in which he equates climate change advocates to “communists” who are trying to impose a “communist government” on the world and take away Americans’ “Freedom.” How is that scientific evidence that climate change isn’t human-induced? Lastly, the sources used by the website aren’t all that reputable: as I opened another tab I found a video of Dr. John Christy saying "plants just love CO2 and it could be said if they had a chance to vote whether we should limit co2 or not and they would vote no because co2 is food for them as plants."Similarly, after having looked up some of their sources, I found that most scientific scholarly articles had been funded by either oil companies or the army!

Therefore, at first glance, “Friends of Science” looks more convincing, as its better organized and more pleasing to the eye. However, when you analyze the context, you realized that the website is not rooted in science but politics. The message isn’t “listen to science, global warming is caused by the sun” but rather “don’t listen to those phony communists, fight for your freedom.”

P.S. I’d like to add that when reading the comments on the “How to talk to a Climate Skeptic” website, I fell on a comment made by a climate change skeptic who quoted the journal “The Eco-Enquirer” to counter-act the information that was found on the web page—evidently, he hadn’t realized that the journal’s disclaimer read: “All content on this site, being a mixture of parody, satire, and lame humor, is for entertainment purposes only. If any content is found to be offensive or objectionable in any way, please accept our apologies... but we also suggest that you get a life."

Don't judge a book by its cover!

The different websites discussing climate change really made me think about the ways in which people are getting their information about climate change.

The "Friends of Science" website definitely had the better aesthetics: the spinning globe, the beautiful images of nature underneath the descriptions of the different scientists working on the website, the blue background--all of these images combined to create something which looks very official, scientific and pretty. I can definitely understand how someone who is interested in finding out more information about global warming could stumble upon this site and be persuaded by its argument against the idea of global warming, because for each global warming argument, the website had an argument against the phenomenon which could sound plausible if you do not know much about global warming. I had never heard before of the argument that the sun, and not human induced change, is the main factor in climate change.

I was interested to learn more about this organization, "Friends of Science," because it is always a good idea to know where information is coming from, who the people are who have created this site, and what there agenda is in order to make well-informed decisions about what information to listen to and what information is slanted towards a particular goal. I googled "Friends of Science" to see what I could learn. I was glad I did. According to sourcewatch.org, "Friends of Science," which is an organization in Calgary, Canada, recieves funding from oil companies indirectly, so it seems from this information that "Friends of Science" probably has a particular slant towards denouncing global warming.

Since today I feel like most scientists have come to the conclusion that global warming is a legitimate phenomenon which is occurring, "Friends of Science" must find itself on the opposite end of mainstream scientific thought. The website's purpose is most likely to look like a non-biased group of scientists who have come together to try and change perceptions that global warming is occuring, when in reality it is a distinctly anti-global warming organization whose interests come from groups which want to continue the harmful human impacts on the environment which have been occuring.

The Grist website has a much less appealing look. The website is very stark and requires clicking on many links in order to get the information you need. The way in which each myth is addressed is similar to the ways in which the questions are addressed by "Friends of Science," by putting up the objection and then discussing why the objection is not reality. I found this site harder to peruse, however. Although the site is organized and clearly provides interesting points about the reality of global warming, it is less inviting than the "Friends of Science" site.

I think most of us like to think that we don't judge a book by its cover. In terms of looking at these two websites, however, I found that although I believe strongly that global warming is a real phenomenon and am distraught that there are people out there who still deny that it is occurring, I spent more time on the "Friends of Science" website. This is due to a couple of reasons:
1) I was curious about the kinds of reasoning that goes into denying global warming, since I have always asserted belief in global warming and have read about all of the evidence behind global warming, and was interested to see how a group could go about saying that global warming does not exist.
2) Plain and simple, the "Friends of Science" website seemed more organized and was more enjoyable to peruse, even though I don't agree with the science.

The point of these websites is to put out evidence supporting or refuting the fact that global warming is occuring. I find it distressing that the website which refutes global warming is a more inviting site, because people might spend more time on that site. Also, since the "Friends of Science" website does not explain its ties to the oil industry it would not be clear to someone happening upon the site that the scientists involved have these connections. That is why it is always good to try and find out further information about certain websites and whether or not they might have a particular bias. Another important point is that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover!

Global warming is occuring, and I think that the science has proven that. The Grist website had countering points to a multitude of objections that global warming disbelievers have put forth. Al Gore's interesting movie, An Inconvenient Truth also explains a lot about the phenomenon of global warming. A lot will need to be done to try and slow down global warming in the next decade or so, and websites such as "Friends of Science" are changing the debate from thinking through the best ways to combat climate change to debating whether or not global warming is actually occuring. I feel like the debate should have moved past deciding on whether or not the phenomenon is occuring to working on how we can deal with the coming problems, and websites such as "Friends of Science" are perpetuating the "There is no climate change" myth.

Being part of nature itself

            Part of my study abroad experience in Zanzibar, Tanzania, involved spending one month on my own doing marine related research. For that, I decided to look at the distribution and feeding habits of coral reef fish during high versus low tide and chose to stay on Misali Island, an island a few miles off of Pemba Island. This island had no inhabitants, except for 5 rangers who were there at all times to ensure that no illegal fishing was taking place in this marine protected area.

            During 3 weeks, I slept on the beach, under a mosquito net and snorkeled during the day to understand the behavioral patterns of coral reef fish in the area. I spent two to three hours everyday, hovering above coral reefs—it was breathtaking. At first, fish noticed me, they were curious, aggressive or scared depending on the species but after a few days of going to the same site, the resident fish stopped noticing me. It was like I had become part of their ecosystem—a feeling I had never experienced before. It was an incredible feeling to be able to watch wildlife run its course without human interference and for me to be able to watch them having for only sound the soft clicking of the seafloor clams.

            One day, I witnessed a group of fish doing their courting displays. The female was hovering over a coral and the males were aligned to her right. One by one they left the “waiting line,” danced around the female and formed a new line on the female’s left side. When they had all performed the exact same dance with the female, she swam towards them all and left with only one of the males. The others dispersed and resumed their normal activities. It was unreal, magical.           

            Such encounters with nature should be available for everyone to experience. Wildlife in its natural environment is not only beautiful but it also raises people’s environmental consciousness. This is why we should all be concerned with “saving nature.” Humans were once part of nature but we’ve been gradually alienating ourselves from it by turning towards technology and synthetics. All in all, it is of uttermost importance to preserve nature for three main reasons:

1. because nature as inalienable rights, its wellbeing has value in it of itself and humans are in no position to take away these rights.
2. because Humans have no right to deprive future generations from experiencing nature the way we do.
3. because nature renders humans an endless list of services, called ecosystem services. So destroying nature will create chaos and raise the strength of the environmental threat that we are currently facing. (e.g. if we take away wetlands, we are more prone to destruction through storms; if we destroy rainforests, less carbon will be sucked from the atmosphere, exacerbating global climate change.) 

I have had many encounters with nature, but there is one experience, which was most impressive to me. While visiting my grandparents in Switzerland two summers ago, I bought myself a two-day train pass to the entire country of Switzerland. On my last day I decided to go deep into the Alps to a village at the absolutely end of one of the train lines. The ride was absolutely spectacular, winding through valleys and along majestic cliffs. I finally arrived in the little village of Les Diablerets and began my adventure. I heard of a world-class ski resort with good trails up the road from the village, so I decided to go to it. I hoped on the postal delivery truck (only means of public transportation out there) and went further into the valley and a quarter way up a mountain. When I was dropped off on the side of the road, I saw that the sky lift for the resort was empty. It seemed like they were closed for the day.

The post truck going in the other direction was not coming for another five hours, so I was going to be stuck in a desolate parking lot in the middle of the Alps. Instead of waiting for the truck, I started to walk back down the road. About a mile up the road, I saw a trial go across the road, going down the mountain in the direction of the village. It was a more direct path than the more winding road. I started to go down this path and I began my adventure. This walk was the closest I have ever been to nature. I walked a long a stream, passing waterfalls, and hiking through the forest. Occasionally the path would turn into a vista and I got to experience the majesty of the high Alps across the valley from where I was standing. For the three hours I hiked down the mountain, I did not run into another human nor did I see a single manmade object. My cell phone did not work and I heard complete quiet for the only time in my life. This walk through the Alpine forest showed me nature for its glory and made me appreciate it more than I ever had before.

Nature is a necessary and wonderful part of life. Nature is important to the health and well being of people despite what it might seem. It is hard to understand fully why Nature is important to humans; it’s not until you experience it in person do you realize what nature means to us. Promoting good health and better sanity are all positives. This is notwithstanding the tangible benefits such as cleaner air.

Power of Nature

The most thrilling and magical engagement I have had with the non-human world is visiting to the Grand Canyon National Park. The visit to Gran Canyon happened in my first visit to the United States. This trip to US was my first international trip to non-Asian country. To a little girl from small country, South Korea, everything was so new and shocking. Disneyland, Universal studio, great hotels in Las Vegas and so many more eye-catching and huge scale of human-made attractions were something that I never seen it before. It was so large, luxurious and even seemed beautiful to me.
However, when I finally visited the Grand Canyon, I realized how small and meaningless the man-made attractions that I had visited were. I felt so physically and spiritually small, when I stepped closer to the edge of the cliff. My senses were so overwhelmed by the immense size of the landscape. It is not only the size that is so powerful and inspiring. It was big but not dull. Every place I laid my eyes was different. It was unbelievable delicate and detailed.
The power of nature made me feel like I could even fly. I find myself moving closer and closer to the end of the cliff to look more closely and carefully. I just wanted to be part it. Good thing there was protection bar. The tour guide told me that there is quite large number of people who actually jump off the cliff. I never felt such a feeling before. I was so thrilled and amazed, but at the same time I was scared. I was scared, because I finally realized how important nature that we, human, are keeping destroying and going against is.
I definitely think that we should concern ourselves with saving nature. Nature does not only provide physically livable world, but also provides spiritual wellbeing. We do not have right to take away future generation’s right to have great experiences that we’ve had from nature by destroying in our convenience.

Outdoor School

Back in Oregon, there is a camp that I went to for thirteen years called Camp Namanu. Camp Namanu host this program called Outdoor School, which is run by a non-profit organization. Outdoor School (ODS) is the opportunities for four classes of sixth graders from different schools around the Portland Public School district come to a camp to learn about the environment hands on. The students’ stay there for a week and the camp brings in a group of high school volunteers to be counselors and teachers to the students. The students get to learn four different areas: soil, plants, animals and water. The students spend the entire day outside in the forest, learning hands on about evaporation, arthropods, and numerous other subjects. The most magical experiences I’ve had with the non-human world have occurred at Camp Namanu during Outdoor School. Outdoor school does not allow any electronic devices, so you spend the entire week being away from school, electronics, and magazines. Every night the entire camp gets together and they host a big bon fire outside. The counselors run the bonfire and they perform songs and skits for the group. I felt a really strong connection to nature when I was there, because I didn’t use any electronic devices. I participated in the ODS program six times.

Every day at ODS I led students on a hike around the camp. Camp Namanu has over 600 acres of land covered in forest, so it is the perfect place to do some sight seeing for animals. One day I saw a bear. I think that is one of the most thrilling experiences I’ve ever seen, because a bear is so powerful and big. I never thought I would see one in its natural environment. I also saw numerous birds like eagles and hawks. I saw deer and elk. I have seen moles and foxes. I always had a really fun time tracking animal prints around the camp.

I think it is important to save nature. We have to save the environment, its all we have. I have no question in my mind that this one of the most important things of my time. However that doesn’t mean that we have the right tools to go about saving nature. We have some technology that can help, but we have no systems of government that are willing to step in that direction. The UN has been very ineffective when it comes to environmental problems, besides with Ozone depletion. Saving nature is going to a difficult challenge because most countries do not put this as a priority. The Bush administration did not think the environment was an important agenda concern. President Obama has put the environment as an important policy, but Cap and Trade is being trumped by the Healthcare debate. So I do believe that we have to save nature, I just don’t know if the world is going to be able to get together and do something about it.

-Tracey Swan

"Nature Deficiency Disorder"

When I was thinking about what to write for this blog post, I started to think about experiences which I have had in nature, and made a list of different interesting and meaningful experiences which I have had with animals, plants, trees, and forests. Most of these events, however, were not entirely away from the human world in the true Thoreau sense of leaving society behind and truly engaging with the natural world.

I can't think of any time where I was truly by myself with nature, away from the hustle and bustle of human everyday life, experiencing nature as it is meant to be experienced. The events I had on my list were places I visited during a cruise to Alaska the summer between fourth and fifth grades, but even during tours to rainforests or while watching ice melt away from the side of a glacier, I was still surrounded by people. I was often on a bus or in a car or atleast walking with a large group of people; I was not engaging with nature in a one-on-one, non-human basis. So while watching whales leap out of the icy waters or catching a glimpse of a huge waterfall cascading down the side of a mountain was for me thrilling / magical / enchanting, I cannot truly say that it was non-human, because all of these experiences were on a cruise ship or in a car or bus.

The next idea that I came up with was a dolphin experience I had when I was probably about 7, when I, with a group of other kids, got to sit and have a dolphin come up really close to us and we could pet the dolphin and experience being near another creature so directly. This experience was very exciting for me, because I have always loved dolphins and so it was really spectacular to have the chance to interact with one on such a close basis. This was definitely not interacting in a non-human way, however, because I was surrounded by other kids and a dolphin trainer. Have I had any experiences with nature where I have thrown off the leash of society and truly interacted with nature on my own terms? Where is my "Into the Wild"?

I used to hike near my house at this hiking path called Difficult Run. It's really beautiful, and nearly the whole walk you are followed to the right by a winding stream or river, depending on which point of the walk you are on. At parts, you can climb across logs which have fallen over the river, or sit on big rock outcroppings in the middle of the water. My dad usually went on these walks with me, but I think they are the closest I have come to really being by myself in a non-human environment. Sometimes we would go for a long time without talking. I can remember lying on a stone in the middle of the river, feeling the cold rock on my bare feet, my tennis shoes thrown haphazardly to the side, the burble of the water rushing past my ears. It may not be as exciting as an encounter with a wild animal or a big waterfall, but experiences like this one, for me, are the most thrilling / magical / enchanting experiences I have had with the wild. Something as simple as a river running its course, being quiet and listening to the sounds of nature can be pretty magical, because it shows how even the simplest aspects of nature can be beautiful and enchanting. For me, the everyday sounds and sights of nature are the most spectacular. You don't need to go all the way to Alaska or the Caribbean to experience nature in an exhilerating way, it exists right in our backyards and in our local parks and hiking paths.

If nature dissappears, what will future generations see and hear when they go outside? Will they hear the soft hum of crickets and the croak of the frog as the sun sets over the horizen and speckles the landscape in purples and pinks? Will there be parks for them to visit? Will they be able to dip their hands in cool, relatively clean water rushing down a stream? Will they be able to see a smog-free sky? Preserving nature is instrumentally important because we are a part of nature. We've throughout the generations created so many ways to make ourselves comfortable, such as houses and electronic conveniences, when we are the most comfortable when we are with nature. It goes back to the idea we talked about earlier in the class, with "nature deficit disorder." If we don't get outside and spend time with nature, we can often start to feel sick or wrong in some way. I try to go on a walk when it is nice out just to give myself the opportunity to spend some time with nature, in a natural setting, away from man-made contraptions.

Global warming is threatening future generations ability to have a nature to go back to. All the advocates of technology saving humanity, such as Julian Simon and his ultimate resource of human ingenuity, maybe have an argument in terms of the fact that the population keeps growing, we keep thinking that doomsday is about to appear, and then technical advances have kept humanity afloat. Although I find it extremely unlikely that we will truly be able to stave of global warming and to keep living sustainably into the future merely by inventing more and more technology to save us, I believe that even if these technologies were to be invented, a lot would still be lost. If future generations are still able to live on the Earth, but most species have become extinct, our forests are destroyed, our oceans are polluted and our skies are grey and full of pollutants, then "nature deficiency disorder" will become commonplace. An often forgotten fact is that people are a part of nature. It is natural for us to want to be with nature and to interact with nature in a basic way. If we live in a future abundant with technology and deficient in nature, life will be a much sadder and less fulfilling thing.

Eco-Tourism is an interesting subject and one filled with many pros and cons. I feel that weighing the pros and cons prove that in the long run it is in fact beneficial. Eco-tourism is a wonderful source of income for many countries that otherwise do not have a very developed tourism industry or economy in general. In these hard times countries need to find ways to gain many and the most effective way with minimal start up costs is tourism. For those countries that were not endowed with culture monuments this may seem impossible. Recently they have started to tap into the abundant moment that was endowed by nature.

In order to use this resource and draw people, and more importantly their money, this moment must be beautiful. For this monument to be enjoyed people want nature to be pristine (un touched by humans). This is a very strong incentive for countries to clean up their environments and protect large sections of their environment. Eco-Tourism provides an economic reward for protecting the environment and this type of reward is what is needed to protect the environment. If the costs and benefits of destroying the environment and turning to manufacturing is less than preserving the environment and marketing it as a tourist destination then it would be in the best interest of the country to invest in it. The protection of the environment is in the best interest of a country in a tangible manner, thus eco-tourism is a wonderful replacement, or at least supplement, to heavy environmental degradation at the hands of industry.

There are some cons to this plan, but in may opinion they are lower than the benefits and are easily fixed with some minimal measures. The costs would include the environmental damage created by the transportation to this area. The impact of having people in this area would be great, but proper measures to ensure that these effects don't escalate would be implemented because they area would have to remain "pristine". The impact of people and transportation would most defiantly be included in the cost of these vacations as they would have an impact.

All together I believe that these eco-tourism is a wonderful idea in promoting the environment and should be seen as a viable alternative to environmentally degrading manufacturing.

Ecotourism

I am torn over this idea of eco-tourism and the benefits of traveling to the detriments traveling have on the environment. While yes, it is more beneficial for the environment for people to not travel on planes. I think that if people did not travel, especially to the south, ignorance of environmental degradation and world conflicts would be especially prominent. When a person travels to the South, they experience poverty and environmental degradation. They experience the culture and they see what their impact is on the country. I think this eye-opening knowledge is beneficial and should be protected. If we created detriments to traveling, like taxes on traveling, I think it could really harm the environment. People get invested in places after they have visited. Like if a traveler goes to Brazil and sees the Amazon forest, I think a traveler would be more invested to protect the Amazons after that experience.

I just feel like Americans are so ignorant about so much that is occurring around the world, that if we put taxes on traveling it could cause more people to not travel. I think traveling is essential to get Americans to broaden and learn about the world. I think traveling is an excellent way to inform people about different problems around the world. However I do wonder if tourists are willing to learn about local political issues when they travel, or if they prefer to lay out on the beach instead.

At the same time I feel like eco-tourism is an important problem. Many people go to different countries and waste so many resources to have their elegant hotels. The waste at hotels and planes high fossil fuel consumption does create a strong environmental impact. Tourist should have to address their wasteful habits and pay something towards their environmental impact. So I guess even though I believe that we must encourage traveling, if you are producing large amounts of waste, you should have to address this. I do believe that if a person is traveling for educational reasons, like studying abroad or grant projects, that we should not make them pay any additional taxes for their travel waste. I think that if a person is traveling for educational purposes than we must encourage that over the environmental impact.

-Tracey Swan

eco-tourism

Last semester, my friends and I had chance to join a group of people who went to the National Mall to pick up trash after the Cherry Blossom Festival. I love going to The National Mall, especially during the Cherry Blossom Festival. I am sure many of you already went to one if not many. It is so beautiful that I cannot describe in words. Therefore, when my friends first asked me to go to the Mall to pick up trash, I wondered who would throw trash in such a place. It did not make sense to me that people would come to see a clean and beautiful thing and leave trash behind.
When I got to the Mall, I could not believe what I was watching at. All of the trash cans were overflowed. There were piles and piles of trash. The Mall seemed totally different place from how I remembered. I was so mad. I was just so angry that the tourists came to see the beautiful environment, but they did not care about it. They only focused on eye-catching beauty of Cherry blossom, but no one really appreciate and respect the nature.
However, after watching the film in class, I realized that I am also one of the tourists since there are more fundamental harms that I made as I travel than throwing trash or leaving mess behind. I been to many places where some of them were very urban but some were environmentally well preserved. This summer, I went to Boracay Island in Philippine. Boracay Island is a very small island where no building can build above the palm tree, ocean is so clear that you can see to the bottom, and beach sand is so white and soft. It was one of the most beautiful and amazing places I have been to. Before the tour guild told me one heart breaking story, my days there were heaven like. After the tourists rushed into the island, and the big and luxurious hotels were built to serve them, local people are experiencing frequent blackouts and water shortages. The big franchised hotels have prior access to water and electricity than local people. I thought it is so bitter and ironic how tourists push local people out to the edge. The hotels are built in the most beautiful and convenient place. The local people who do not have cars, and are the poorest are pushed far into the island.
Before I take this class, I never thought of solutions to these problems. I never heard of “eco-tourism” before. I still do not know the solution, but I could carefully make suggestion. We should not only praise to go to some place far and costly. I am sure many of us did not even visit local vacation places. We could walk or take bike to local places rather than taking hours of plan to foreign country. I also suggest using local market and restaurant instead of using American franchised store or restaurant when we are in vacation. In addition, many hotels already encourage people to reuse towels and bedding more than once.
We should all participated in eco-tourism and try to minimize our impact on environment during tours. We must be eco friendly to enjoy our environment better and longer.

Eco-Toursim: Considerations on Environmentally Friendly Travel

Watching the video in class on Tuesday, "Life and Debt," I started to feel really guilty. It made me think about the last time I went on vacation to a tropical island. When I go on vacation, it's true that I, like most members of the first world, usually think mostly about how excited I am to be in this beautiful place, and how relieved I am to have a break from work and school. I think about the great time I am going to have exploring the island, swimming in the sea, drinking tropical drinks and in general participating in activities which do not give credence to the fact that the island is inhabited by people who are trying to make a living but are having difficulty due to the increasingly globalized world and the pressures the first world puts on the third world in terms of loans with lots of restrictions and other manners of global economy which prevent the global south from keeping up in the global economy.

The narrator's voice in "Life and Debt" really brought some thoughts home to me about the types of trips I take and the types of issues going on in the places I visit that I miss because I am too busy thinking about how excited I am to be on vacation. I left the movie feeling a little bit disheartened to tell the truth, because I wasn't really sure what to do to change my travelling habits or to become a more consciencious traveller who understands the impact she is having on the place she is visiting in terms of the people and the environment. The movie showed me that the type of experience that I have on a tropical island during a vacation is very different from the experience that the islanders are having in many cases, especially due to the now globalized economy wherein small nations are forced to compete with first world economies, which is an impossible feat and therefore drains the economy and lifestyles of many of the people living in small, less developed nations.

I first heard about eco-tourism last year in my Travel Writing class. We discussed how eco-tourism is a form of tourism wherein the traveller minimizes his or her impact on the environment by staying in an eco-friendly hotel made out of eco-friendly materials and in general trying to travel in a way which is not as harmful to the environmental as regular tourism. Eco-Tourism sounded like a good idea, but I definitely thought that it would be hard to find trips which are ec0-friendly and that it would be more expensive to travel in that way. Also, even if I found a trip that would be environmentally sustainable, I would still have to fly to the location, and the environmental costs of my transportation would be high. Although the idea of eco-tourism seems nice, there were a lot of considerations to think about in terms of eco-tourism.

It's important to keep in mind that, like the video "Stop! That's Not Eco-Tourism" says, many tours that claim that they are "eco-tours" are often not particularly environmentally friendly. The business just says that the tour is eco-friendly in order to get your business because it thinks that environmentalism has become something that is "trendy" or "in vogue," and that more people will want to go on a trip which is sustainable in terms of the environment. This reminds me a lot of the blog question from last week about food, wherein I discussed briefly how difficult it is to actually know whether or not a product is truly organic, or whether the company just did the minimum to get organic labelling. If there are not good enough checks on these requirements to be able to call your trip "eco-friendly" or your product "organic," then it is extraordinarily difficult for the consumer to be able to make informed decisions which are helpful to the environment.

Don't get me wrong... I think that eco-tourism is a great idea. It's really cool that so many eco-tours are offered today, and that more and more people are considering their environmental impact when they decide to go on vacation. I am definitely interested in trying to be more environmentally and socially conscious when I travel. But there are many factors which make eco-tourism seem less feasible, such as the fact that transportation, food, etc. need to be considered when making these sorts of choices. The only way for an entire trip to be truly eco-friendly would be if the vacation location was within driving distance and you took a hybrid or other eco-friendly car and did not have electricity during your eco-tour. This means that in order to travel to another country, it is very difficult to remain eco-friendly because the flight to that location will be environmentally detrimental, as well as the rental car you use to take you to the location spot. Once you are there, you will be eco-sensitive unless the tour lied and is not actually particularly eco-friendly, but when you leave the transportation costs will crop back up again.

So is it possible to go on a truly eco-tour? It could definitely be done if you scrutinize every minute detail of your trip, but honestly most people will probably not consider (or even think of0 every single variable which could make their trip not entirely eco-friendly. Most people might think of one or two or the variables, and try to weave that aspect of eco-tourism into their vacation, and I think that that's okay. "Stop! That's Not Eco-Tourism" says that as long as you are attempting to be eco-friendly when you plan a trip, than that is still better than giving no consideration at all to the impact you have on the environment when you travel. I agree with that assessment, and I think that it is the most practical way to approach eco-tourism: as a set of guidelines to take into consideration but which will most likely not completely fit into every trip that you take.

I see hope for eco-tourism in the future, especially as more alternative energies are created, transportation becomes more environmentally friendly and stricter rules are put in place over which trips can call themselves "eco-tours."

I also think that if eco-tourism is viewed in another way, it could be beneficial. When I travelled to Denmark this summer, I learned about a lot of really awesome and easy ways to help the environment that the people in Denmark do every day, such as usually take public transportation (their car tax is really high!), recycle cans and bottles for cash, and ride their bikes on a regular basis wherever they need to go in the city. Simply observing these practices were beneficial for me and showed me small ways in which I could make a difference. I think that travelling to countries which are progressive in terms of environmental initiatives and lifestyles could be eco-friendly in the way that they give people from less environmentally friendly places some ideas about how they can better help the environment and slow climate change.

Eco-tourism is great for eco-tourists

I think that any form of travelling will do harm to the environment as long as we really on fossil fuels to get around. And taking the plane is simply the worst facet of it, since planes are the most polluting mode of transportation there is. However, travelling can also do a lot of good to the environment as it raises awareness in people that their actions have an impact on the world and that biodiversity is a beautiful thing that requires the protection. , Experiencing different cultures up close and seeing the way ecosystems and wildlife interact in a natural environment as is offered in eco-tourist vacation packages can spur ideas of individual responsibility, environmental awareness and the overall value of biodiversity in people that may not have had these thoughts before and it may deepen environmental concern in people who were already affected by the issues of pollution and cultural degradation.

Still, I think the majority of the people who would consider going to package deal holydays as shown in the documentary are not going to be attracted by the idea of eco-tourism. Eco-tourism attracts people who already have some level of environmental consciousness and are willing to lessen their impact on the environment.

To cite an example, I was on Zanzibar last fall for a study abroad program and my program director was the head of an eco-tourist island off the coast of Unguja called Chumbe Island. It's a small but beautiful uninhabited forest reserve surrounded by a marine protected coral reef area. It's a very expensive eco-tourism spot where guest stay in what I would define as 5 star bungalows, which function on solar energy, have compost toilets, collect freshwater from rainfall and rely on nature to ensure that no pollutants end up in the surrounding ocean (waste water from showers are filtered by plants highly specialized in capturing nitrate and phosphate from the water). The bungalows are absolutely gorgeous, the ocean very clean and the coral reefs plentiful. Still, when I talked to my program director about Chumbe she said that it is not unusual for tourists to leave after only 1 or 2 days of being on the island because they couldn't stand the idea of sleeping in a bungalow, couldn't stand being on an uninhabited island with no stores around and didn't like that they had no choice but to eat local food. That, I think is a really sad fact. These people paid large sums of money to do eco-tourism, and even in a 5 star eco-tourism environment they couldn't stand the idea of walking outside their comfort zone.

So to go back to the original idea of environmental impact linked to tourism. I think that environmental harm associated with flying should be included in the costs of a trip but that that should be part of a
global internalization of externalities. It is not for the individual only to pay the cost of environmental degradation but for industries and individuals to share it. Travelling is very important for personal
growth so raising the price of travelling will do harm as less people will have access to it on the short run but it will encourage industries to find less polluting alternatives on the long run.

Cost Effectiveness of Food Purchases

The things that impact my food choices are calories, efficiency to getting the food, taste, how long it will take to cook and cost. Normally when I go to a restaurant I have an idea of my favorite dishes at that restaurant, so I like to stick to those dishes. I guess I’m kinda boring. If I’m really hungry I’m more likely to go for a dish that takes less time. Taste and cost play a big part in what I choose to eat a restaurant as well. I love pizza but if it’s $12, I am less inclined to buy that over a cheaper sandwich for example.

The location of a super market also impacts my food choices. I purchase frequently at Whole Foods because it’s right next to the metro. I wouldn’t buy there as much as I do if it didn’t have the easiest location to get too. I also shop at Superfresh, Giant and Safeway. When I shop there, I am looking to buy food that will make easy dishes and that are tasty. The cost of food is a huge consideration for me because I am on a strict budget. I try to eat healthier but am not opposed to eating meals with higher fat content. The environmental impact that my food makes on the world is never a consideration of mine, when I shop for food. I have bought local produce before, but not very often. I support farmer’s market, but rarely have time to go to any.

I do not eat a lot of beef products, but I know that they have a large environmental impact on the world. I made a stir-fry last week with beef strips in it. You have to raise the cows, which cost a lot of money since you have to buy antibiotics and food to make the cows big. The cows produce methane. The cows have to be slaughtered, cleaned and shipped off to a super market. Depending where the cow is located from, the carbon foot will be bigger, because it can easily be from California or the Midwest.

-Tracey

Food Lover

First of all I am really glad that this week’s discussion topic is food. Food is one of my favorite subject to talk about. I cook most of my meal at my house, so I go to market very often. I sometimes like to eat out but not that often. Honestly, I would be very surprised if there is someone that actually thinks about environment, when one is deciding what they are going to eat at a restaurant or buy at a market. Before taking class, I never thought that my eating habit or food shopping habit could bring impact on environment.
I most of time go to Harris Teeter to shop my food. It is the closest to my house and has large selection of everything. I choose to shop at Harris Teeter which is only five minutes away from my house because of its convenience but not because of Harris Teeter that carries local grown food has less impact on environment than Safeway or Costco. When I choose which restaurant to go, I consider the location and mood or style of restaurant. Once I am in the restaurant, I food choice is solely depend on what I what to eat. Sometimes I think about calories, but I usually end up eating what I want to eat. Starbucks is located at the lobby of my apartment, so every day morning before coming to school I pick up a Grande Americano. This means that I waste a cup, a lid and a cup holder (I do not know what exactly that is called) every morning for almost eight months. I also recently consumed California Pizza Kitchen’s frozen BBQ Chicken Pizza. I usually do not eat frozen food or factory made food, but I cannot resist eating this Pizza late night. I am sure this frozen pizza is transferred from thousands and thousands mile from where I live. Next time when I eat this pizza, I should take a look at its label to find out what ingredients are used to make this pizza and where it is made. One of my eating habits that could help environment is that I do not drink soda. I will try to pay attention for few more days to see how my eating or food shopping habits impact environment.

Food Choices

I am not a vegetarian, but when it comes to eating meat or fish, I am very picky about where it come from and whether it was farmed or caught in the wild. I buy free range chicken and refer myself to my seafood watch leaflet to choose which fish is best to buy. As for fruits and vegetables, I go to local organic markets in order to get fresher produce that have more taste and have had less of a negative impact on the environment. At restaurants, although I worry just as much about which fish is offered and where it comes from, I don't usually think about the vegetables as much. 

When it comes to packaged foods, I don't eat pre-made meals but buy cereal, rice, pasta--the basics. For these items, I only choose on the basis of price and taste preference. The same applies for dairy products--I choose cheese according to what I like. In France, I will buy cheese from local producers at the local market, but in DC, local cheese is way too expensive for my student funds, so I usually buy cheese at the supermarket, and it's hardly ever locally produced.

I think a lot about the environment when I choose which food items to buy, however I am also very much aware of what my body needs. I don't eat too much meat because of the impact it has on our environment, but I cannot live without it. My body feels weak after a few days without meat proteins, so I make sure I eat some once in a awhile to keep my level of energy up. (Plus, meat is gooood.) 

Out of everything I've eaten in the past couple days, I think Gruyere was the item with the greatest environmental impact. Because even though the processing of it has a low environmental impact, cows require a lot of grazing space, food and water to produce milk, and since it came from France, it came to the US by plane, which is the mode of transportation with the highest carbon consumption. 

Whole Foods, Organic Foods, Local Foods, Soy Foods

When I go to the grocery store, my first priority is usually to check the labels of most of the processed food I purchase, because nowadays most products contain some type of soy, a food which I am allergic to, along with peanuts and all other legumes. This scanning of ingrediants on the labels of most food not only leads me to discover whether or not the product contains soy lecithin, soy protein or any other form of soy but also learn whether or not the product is local or organic. If I have a choice between two similar products, one of which is organic or local and one of which is not, then I will usually choose the product which is better for the environment.

My infrequent shopping trips to Whole Foods in Tenleytown are cause of specifically close attention to ingredients since (it seems to me) there is a much higher proportion of products containing soy at that grocery store than any other, because soy is often an ingredient in healtheir foods. I am often distraught when watching tv commercials about healthy living when the commercial discusses how great it is to have a diet of nuts and soy. In addition to having more products containing soy, however, Whole Foods also has a number of organic products. When one thinks of Whole Foods, the thought which often comes to mind is that it is an environmentally conscious store. I bought a recycled bag from there last year and bring it back to the store so that the clerk doesn't have to use new paper bags, and the store has many recycling bins for different forms of recycling.

I was at Whole Foods the other day buying ingredients for a salad. I perused the fruits and vegetables section and came across some tomatoes which looked really good. Then my friend and I continued to look around, and came across some organic tomatoes. I actually stopped and thought, "I should buy these instead, because they are labelled organic, and I should support that." There are several problems with this, however. One is that the organic tomatoes were crawling with small bugs. When I looked at the bottom of the package of tomatoes, there were tons of bugs and I was pretty disgusted. The unfortunate problem with many organic products is the side effect of bug infestation, which makes it look less appealing. I am someone who is concerned about environmental change and who wants to try and support endeavors to help the environment. Even I, however, was deterred by the amount of bugs on these tomatoes.

The other problem which often crops up with organic products such as these tomatoes is that it is difficult to tell just how "organic" the products really are. I have heard that it is not that difficult to get organic labelling on your products, so even if I do chose a product labelled "organic" over another similar product, how do I know what kind of an impact that choice has made? I think that there should be labelling for different levels of organic products so that I can make choices which are better informed, because when making these environmentally conscious choices, it is important to feel that you are truly making a difference. Food shopping today for the environmentally concerned consumer is difficult because it is hard to tell how "organic" a product is, because sometimes certain allergies can prevent one from eating something, and because sometimes organic products can be covered with insects.

I believe that buying local is better than buying organic, even though both have their merits. It is difficult to tell to what extent a product is organic, however. With locally grown food, the food does not need to be flown long distances, tastes delicious and supports famers nearby. Buying local is really great, because often there are cute farmers markets to visit and the food tastes fresh since it was grown nearby and did not need to be shipped long distances and produce pollution.

I spent the past few days thinking about what kind of foods I eat. TDR recently had an eating locally day where they had delicious cider grown nearby and a great salad with yellow tomatoes which I really enjoyed. I was glad that they were having a day dedicated to eating locally and was proud to support that day. It's hard sometimes to know whether your food comes from local farmers or not, however. This is especially true at restaurants. When I eat at a restaurant, I never know whether or not the food is local or organic because that is usually not something restaurants advertise. My guess is that a lot of restuarants aren't overly concerned with buying locally or organically unless they specifically advertise the fact that they are a restuarant dedicated to providing environmentally conscious products.

I think that the product which caused the greatest environmental impact that I've eaten in the past few days was a water bottle, since water bottles use a lot of plastic. Usually I try to use the Brita filter in my room for water, or the water fountain down the hall in the dorms. It is definitely much better to bring a reusable canteen for water, but I don't always remember to do that and so sometimes use a water bottle. I would like to cut down on my use of water bottles since they are detrimental to the environment since they are made of plastic. I did recycle the water bottle, however, so atleast the bottle can be reused.

Considerations about what types of food we buy, where they have come from and how they were grown are important in order to help the environment. It is a complicated world however, especially at the grocery store when you are trying to decide between whole foods, organic foods and local foods. Even though it takes some consciencious thinking and some careful decision making, however, I do believe that informed decisions about food choices can be made. Just because it takes some effort does not mean that it is not possible.

Taking the time to make the right food choices will have a positive impact on the environment and can taste really good too!